Another Really Dumb Idea in Green Virtue Signaling 

By Andy Caldwell and Roy Reed

In my 35 years of serving as a county government watchdog, I have seen the Gaviota coast and prime agricultural lands throughout the county preserved at all cost by county supervisors, even when it didn’t make sense. The California Coastal Act and the Williamson Act (which serves to preserve the viability of prime ag lands) technically permit development benefiting coastal dependent industry and agriculture. However, the county has denied common-sense projects in both of these areas because it considers them sacrosanct, in keeping with its no-growth agenda outside of existing urban boundaries.

We can surely see both the Gaviota coast and prime lands sacrificed to the gods of green energy by local high priests masquerading as County supervisors. I have teamed up with former county planning commissioner, Roy Reed, to share the details of the most current and horrible example of a solution in search of a problem. As Californians find themselves inundated in layer upon layer of green energy initiatives, the state finds itself awash in an embarrassment of riches.

Simply put, during daylight hours, when untold acres of solar electricity generation hits peak production, the state must pay its neighbors to absorb that excess power–only to find itself caught short during evening hours when demand peaks. Without safe and accessible means of storing generated solar electricity there is no way to match peak output with peak demand. Meeting peak evening electricity demand often requires supplementation by fossil-fuel-fired “peaker plants” to generate adequate power.

In a more sensible state, there would be adequate capacity for pumped hydroelectric power, such as in PG&E’s Big Creek or Los Angeles DWP’s Castaic Power Plant– where water, pumps, and gravity are used to store energy without pollution. Unfortunately, California hasn’t built any pumped hydro facilities in decades, leaving the state with only one power storage option– battery farms (along with all of their potential hazards and concerns). To add to that excess power storage puzzle is the distribution question: can solar facilities be built conveniently close to the power distribution grid, or do they require miles and miles of expensive transmission lines? That is the perplexing situation much of the state now faces.

Santa Barbara County, undaunted by those facts and under direction of its green-leaning Supervisors Laura Capps, Joan Hartmann, and their obedient minion, Roy Lee, has leapt into the fray and directed Planning and Development to craft a Utility Grade Solar Ordinance for the county that will expand a previous ordinance which limited utility grade solar to a 600 acre footprint in the Cuyama Valley. The new ordinance has just emerged from two Planning Commission hearings with a potential footprint of 16,000 acres doled out at 100 acres per project limited to one 100-acre plot per parcel of 1,000 acres or more, along with permission to build associated battery storage. If fully built out, those 160 projects could potentially produce double the county’s current electricity consumption.

While the plan may appear workable, the questions regarding distribution on the power grid remain, compounded by the fact that Santa Barbara County sits at the nexus of the state’s two power providers–Southern California Edison in the south county, and PG&E in the north.

Which brings us to the next questions: how does the county get to its 16,000 acre goal when the southern half, linked to SCE, has little open land suitable for solar other than the Gaviota Coast? Is this turning out to be another south-county initiative for which the north county will bear the brunt? Will the disproportionate share of proposed solar be borne by the north county on prime ag lands, those with the best soil and water availability?

Despite assurances to the contrary, solar farms are rarely built on hillsides because of the limited sun exposure. Moreover, prime ag lands are closest to power substations, thereby reducing the cost of the projects, meaning the decision makers better not overlook the fact that there are few power substations located near ag lands not immediately-adjacent to urban areas. As we saw in Monterey County, battery energy storage system fires can create a toxic plume, endangering communities and contaminating ag lands. Furthermore, consider the required cost of $5,000,000.00 per mile of transmission lines that would be required to move the power from a remote area to an existing substation. This would unquestionably tax the viability of any such project.

In the end, this initiative brings far more questions than answers. While the BOS seems hellbent on eliminating gas and oil production (nearly one acre of solar panels are required to produce the same energy as one barrel of oil), it has embarked on a path that will undoubtedly result in the loss of many thousands of acres of productive agricultural lands in pursuit of a goal which may never be realized. And for what? Redundant and excessive solar capacity? When our state is drowning in the same?

Please recall that solar only produces four hours per day and battery energy storage systems can only save what has been produced. We’re gonna sacrifice 16,000 acres of land for four hours of energy? And, what about the fact that our region is subject to catastrophic wildfires, which would render the solar panels and the requisite battery energy storage system toxic waste?  

Mark this down as just another dumb idea in green virtue signaling.